"A Committee of Correspondence"

12 November 2017

The Danger of Our Russian Delusion by Publius Tacitus

I'm closing in on 65. Years, not miles. And I do not recall a time where so many people willingly have accepted lies and falsehoods about the threat from Russia and Russians. The combination of delusion and lies about Russia and Putin have attached themselves to our body politic and our public discourse like the monster in the movie Alien. We are infested by a malevolent collection of beliefs. Left uncorrected or unchallenged, these delusions could set off a series of events that could ultimately cause the destruction of our country.

I realize that sounds over the top, but bear with me. Let's review the new obsession with Russia as the main threat we must defeat through the lens of Russian meddling in our election. Everyone knows, or so we are told on a daily basis, that Russia deliberately tried to subvert our democracy in last year's Presidential election and that Putin is a modern day Stalin intent of taking over the world. Here's an example from just the other day courtesy of CNN:

CIA Director Mike Pompeo stands by US intelligence assessments that Russia meddled in the 2016 election, the agency said Saturday, despite President Donald Trump saying he believes Russian President Vladimir Putin when he says his country didn't interfere.

"The Director stands by and has always stood by the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment entitled: Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent U.S. Elections," the CIA said in a statement when asked for reaction to the president's remarks. "The intelligence assessment with regard to Russian election meddling has not changed."

I can understand the media getting this wrong. But the so-called intelligence community also is participating in this charade. What is Mike Pompeo's excuse?

Let's start with the specious claim that the “U.S. Intelligence Community concluded” that Russia directed a campaign to influence the election. There never has been a "Community Conclusion." You only have a “Community Conclusion” when you have a coordinated, written document. That means something akin to a National Intelligence Estimate, which has been thoroughly coordinated among the relevant agencies.

What does “coordination” mean? Any analyst worth their salt at the CIA or the DIA are taught from their first day on the job that everything they write, especially if it uses material from the NSA and the State Department, must be reviewed and approved by their at State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research NSA. The purpose of such a review is to ensure that the source intelligence cited in the analysis is represented accurately.

It is different with the FBI. The FBI is not an intelligence organization per se. They don't gather "intelligence" that is shared with CIA and DIA. They collect evidence. Such evidence cannot be routinely shared with intelligence organizations.

If a CIA analyst is writing a piece on Russian computer hacking, and is using original intelligence generated by NSA, then the analyst would coordinate with his or her NSA counterpart. In addition, the analyst also would share the document with State INR and DIA. Only in the rarest circumstances would the analyst seek clearance from the FBI (this would mean the FBI produced and realized to the intelligence community a document that was not part of a criminal investigation).

Are you keeping count? We are talking about a maximum of four agencies. So why does the media insist that the number is 17? That claim originated with Hillary Clinton.

“We have 17, 17 intelligence agencies, civilian and military who have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these cyber attacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin. And they are designed to influence our election. I find that deeply disturbing,” Clinton said during Wednesday's presidential debate in Las Vegas.

The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow—the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these activities.

What a joke!! Clapper and Johnson insisted that the USIC was "confident." That's just a weasel word for "belief." But belief is not the same as having actual evidence. More telling was the fact that their written statement was not accompanied by a Community Assessment or Intelligence Memorandum. Just take their word for it.

The next “judgment” of the so-called intelligence community came via a "Joint Analysis Report" from Homeland Security and the FBI:

This Joint Analysis Report (JAR) is the result of analytic efforts between the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). This document provides technical details regarding the tools and infrastructure used by the Russian civilian and military intelligence Services (RIS) to compromise and exploit networks and endpoints associated with the U.S. election, as well as a range of U.S. Government, political, and private sector entities. The U.S. Government is referring to this malicious cyber activity by RIS as GRIZZLY STEPPE

This had nothing to do with the Intelligence Community. The FBI and DHS are principally law enforcement outfits. They do not issue intelligence judgments. They are supposed to produce things like affidavits. In other words, documents that can be presented to a grand jury and will hold up if presented subsequently in a criminal court.

This report includes an analytic assessment drafted and coordinated among The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and The National Security Agency (NSA), which draws on intelligence information collected and disseminated by those three agencies.

Missing form the drafting and coordination is the State's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) and the Defense Intelligence Agency aka DIA. The exclusion of the DIA is very curious given several of the conclusions in the report fingering the Russian GRU as one of the main culprits for meddling. This key judgment at the bottom of page ii is typical:

We assess with high confidence that Russian military intelligence (General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate or GRU) used the Guccifer 2.0 persona and DCLeaks.com to release US victim data

DIA has the most expertise in the USIC on the GRU. That is what DIA does. They track and analyze the activities of foreign military organizations. If you are doing a legitimate community analysis on the dastardly deeds of the Russian military then DIA should have been consulted. They were not. That point alone tells you that this so-called "Community Assessment" was a fraud.

The 17 Agency lie is now firmly a part of our national political meme. It is an assertion uncritically accepted by a host of seemingly smart people who should know better. As I noted at the beginning of this piece it is inexcusable that someone like Mike Pompeo should endorse this mendacity. It means he really does not know anything substantively about interagency coordination and the process for arriving at community judgments.

This is not a minor error. It is helping condition the American public to accept more lies about Russia. And those lies keep coming. They are cropping up in stories about Russia's activities in the Ukraine and in Syria. Instead of being encourage to see Russia as a potential ally in the war against radical Islam, the American public are being conditioned to see Russia as the reincarnated Soviet Bear intent on devouring the peaceful democracies. Accepting such a lie on such a broad scale moves us closer to war and our ultimate destruction. That's why I do not sleep well at night.

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

shepherd,
You're not telling me anything I didn't already know. I can't speak for PT, but I'm not arguing for the essential goodness of Russia. That's a straw man/ red herring. I am arguing that if Russia engaged in any of what you describe, it is a mere drop in the ocean. What you describe is performed 24/7 by both cable news and the written media. It is also performed by many individuals and groups on social media. Again, I ask, not rhetorically, why all the talk about Russia and not, for example, George Soros?

I can go to a leftist outlet like "Mother Jones" and it appears that they live on an entirely different planet than the folks at a site like "Red State". No Russians needed.

Then there are the colleges and universities that seem to produced severely brainwashed zombies in certain study tracks.

The involvement of Russia is a tempest in a teapot.

I dispute that the goal is merely to divide the populace. There is no value or profit in that. The goals are more long term and sinister.

I further dispute your implied assertion that the people are a bunch of stupid rubes that are easily conned by the kind of BS that you make a living selling and propagating. We know what we see with our own eyes and hear with our own ears. We can think and reason. I ask again - not rhetorically, but directly to you - if the people are as you think they are and your product so effective, then why did Hillary lose? She was after all the biggest slinger of the crap you sell. Why weren't people brainwashed by it? And isn't that, at the end of the day, what's got you so upset? That your product didn't stick.

Linda,
I think you just sided with my opinion despite your expressed disgust. You want to classify information and keep it hidden. Fine. I agree. Then who decides what little bits to let out and when? I don't trust the IC. They have proven themselves to be dangerous liars. I am thinking about Clapper and I am thinking about the "evidence" leading to the Iraq, just for starters.

Not mixing collection and analysis with information operations is a good general rule. I agree with for the reasons you stated. In real life I often had collectors, analysts and DOD IO specialists huddled around the same keyboard doing all three specialties simultaneously and symbiotically.

In that case the work product of the DoD parts of the IC is largely worthless except as propaganda or something about targeting or water depth, etc. In the "good old days" that did not happen anywhere I held sway. Maybe that is why Clapper was so eager to remove me. A "general rule" is no rule at all. pl

You're right. I still believe Alperovitch is a generally reliable source despite the retraction he was forced to make concerning the effectiveness of that Ukrainian artillery app malware. I also consider Shawn Henry of CrowdStrike to be reliable, largely based on my experiences with him at the FBI. A new source I found is Robert Johnston who worked for CrowdStrike under Henry at the time. His story has only recently been made public. I find it compelling and convincing. Since I doubt Johnston has any ties to Cambridge University, I would be interested in hearing your reasons for discounting his story.

As for Steele and anything out of the DNC, I don't rely on their accounts in forming my opinion on this subject. And most statements out of the FBI and DOJ require viewing them with a jaundiced eye. As for MI6, I don't pay much attention to them, either.

I regret to have to say this, but I no longer trust you. It seems to me you are a naturally decent, honourable and courageous man, but I also think you are a traumatised Lithuanian – for very understandable reasons – and my confidence in your ability impartially to assess any evidence regarding matters to do with Russia is zilch.

Just a brief excursus to clarify. Last year, my wife and I met up in Vienna with the lady who was my mother’s au pair when I was a small child. (She was in Munster when it was bombed, my parents met in South-East London during the blitz. We talked about it.)

Her son’s second wife, like my sister in law, is from Galicia. After his disastrous first marriage, she has made him really happy. Her father was deported to Russia for ten years after Galicia was reincorporated into Soviet Ukraine.

I really like her. But I know that there is no point in expecting that she will have any understanding whatsoever of the ways in which very many people in Crimea and the Donbass feel, any more than there is of expecting that many people there would have any understanding of how she feels.

In the same way, your comments on the NATO production about the ‘Forest Brothers’ made it absolutely clear to me that your views on any matters to do with Russia are not reliable. The point is not that the – patently visceral – responses from people like Zahkarova, Rogozhin, and – in particular – Joseph Kobzon to the video are necessarily any more guides to any kind of absolute truth than yours. (You might listen to Kobzon performing ‘Zhuravli’ at the 2015 ‘Victory Day’ concert.)

It is simply that some people can escape from the traumas of the past, and others can’t. From what I can see – and I do not like saying this – I do not think you can.

My collection team along with the analysts and IO operators we worked with never produced work product or finished intelligence. That was the realm of the DI analysts as it always was. My only connection to that process was the granting of release of LIMDIS or ORCON information reports for use in the analysts' finished products. I was allowed to review the draft of these products, but only as a courtesy. I had no editorial control.

The embedding of collectors and analysts into operational units became a major feature of DIA in Afghanistan and Iraq and every other place our troops were fighting. It lead to the emphasis on "actionable intelligence" over finished intelligence product. This process preceded Clapper at DNI and, I have heard, only accelerated under Flynn at DIA. AFAIK, the DI within DIA is still independent of the DO and produces its own work product. I'm not sure about recent reorganizations at CIA. I would think their attempts to fully integrate the DO and DI would lead to a weakening of the DI and their analytical independence.

That's your prerogative. Perhaps deep down I am still a traumatized Lithuanian. However, if you look back on my contributions to SST, you will see I've been a cheerleader for Novorossiya and the reintegration of Crimea back into Russia. I've also been complimentary and supportive of Russian actions in Syria. I've even been complimentary of Russian skills at IO and definitely consider their current theoretical framework (reflexive control) for IO far superior to ours. I fail to see how this marks me as an emotionally crippled Russophobe. Outside of these contributions, I'm quite fond of all manner of Russian culture, although, if given the opportunity to confront the NKVD and MVD troops or the Communist officials that sought to eradicate my family, I'd gladly kill them.

Yes, my Lithuanian connection definitely led me to swell with pride at the "Forest Brothers" NATO propaganda video. I was also surprised at the visceral reaction to that video by Russian media and government officials. Putin has done very well in owning Russian history, the good and the bad. I don't understand how the Soviet treatment of the Baltics can be defended.

Dude,
You realize, don't you, that the CIA and NSA and the FBI completely missed the fact that the Russians allegedly launched some massive meddling campaign. Only one of two possible conclusions--1) our intel community was, once again, completely asleep at the switch or 2) it never happened as subsequently explained.
The truth of the matter is the latter.

PT and others: If you have the time and interest,
I think it would be valuable to do some inspection for bias
in this story.
I don't have the expertise to do that myself,
but think it would be valuable for some to do so.